Chernobyl was the explosion of a former russian atomic reactor in 1986.

72 % of it’s fallout went down on Belarus – the most Chernobyl affected country in the world. More than 2 million people are still living there in contaminated areas. Here are Belarusian Radiation maps

The Government has build an own city around the main capital Minsk, it is called “Malinowka” – it’s like a circle around Minsk. Only for Chernobyl evacuees. The IAEA gags the WHO not to publish any other numbers about death or illness caused by Chernobyl. It’s because of a gag contract between the IAEA and the WHO – since 1959:

That’s why both say only 30 – 50 people died of Chernobyl and 5000 could die. Sources like the IPPNW (web) or the Ukrainian health minstry say: 125,000 people have died (1993) and 800,000 (according to German Federal Working Agency Chernobyl) are affected by Chernobyl. The IAEA denies every other cancer caused by radiation except thyroid cancer. This is because the IAEA is a profiteer of atomic energy: Read more about it here – IAEA and ICRP and ICRP and ALARA

Chernobyl kills invisible and continues. Chernobyl shows that atomic energy is not peaceful. Chernobyl exploded with a yield of 0,2 – 0,3 kilotons. There are atomic weapons which have a lower yield. Source: Robert Green (former British navy member) and Prof. Robert Hesketh (former physicist and atomic operant – CEGB) & Don Arnott – Hinkley Point Hearing 1988 – mentioned in the IPPNW book “Tschernobyl 1996″.

This is also international supported via CORE Program – or “How to end Chernobyl”

The Belarusian Government denies every link between illness and Chernobyl – medics can lose their jobs if they make a connection. Next to Radio Belarus in Minsk is a house where the state records thyroid illnes among belarusian people. Here are photos from April 2009:

And near this house I’ve spotted a white bus. It was from the “Chernobyl Children’s Project International” – view their great website here and watch their interesting and well made movies. Regards to Mrs. Ryan.

And now, ROSATOM - the builder of the Iranian atomic reactors builds an atomic reactor in Belarus: Atomic power crisis

Olga, a young journalist from Kiev, remembers her childhood as a wonderful time: she used to live in Pripyat, a young town, full of children, mushrooms and flowers. The only problem: Pripyat is located next to the reactor of Chernobyl. At the age of eight years Olga was evacuated with her family. 22 years later she returns with her Brazilian husband to the place of her childhood, which is now a ghost town. A film about the loss of home, the second generation after Chernobyl and the question if it is still dangerous to eat daisies?

The European Union supports the Restart of the Bulgarian Junk Reactor “Kosloduj” (in service since 1974) – one of Europes most dangerous reactors (SOURCE here and here. Both blocks of Kosloduj were offline since 2007. The history of Kosloduj is a scandal: It’s a time bomb since 1990, when the IAEA inspected it. Results: NO seperated emergency coolant circle, NO containment, contaminated ground water, inoperable fire doors, and control room 2 only had a wooden door! One of Europes TOP 5 of the most dangerous atomic power plants.

Nuclear Power is a Con Trick
Nuclear energy is dispensable for power supply

“In order to claim more importance for nuclear power, the nuclear industry repeatedly overstates nuclear energy’s share of electricity generation. If one examines closely what contribution nuclear energy makes to total worldwide energy consumption, it becomes evident that nuclear power is of practically no significance for mankind’s energy needs. In 2001, nuclear electricity supplied only 2.3 percent of worldwide energy needs. Renewable energy’s contribution to world energy supply is already significantly greater. The human race can easily do without nuclear power’s marginal contribution. The risks of nuclear accidents, production of highly radioactive waste and the costs necessary for its disposal, bear no rational relationship to the slight short-term gain in energy that nuclear power provides. Nuclear power is both hazardous and superfluous.”

German energy producer RWE (web) wants to build a new atomic power plant, in Britain - SOURCE HERE

RWE bought land on the Island of Anglesey near the reactor Wylfa (map) according to the RWE daughter RWE NPower. They want to produce as much power as 5 million households need (3,6000,000,000 Watts).

Southkorea wants to expand it’s atomic power SOURCE. They want to spend 20,000,000,000 EUROs of money betwenn 2009 and 2022 for atomic power, 12 new atomic power plants to be exactly. 22 old plants will be closed.

Nuclear Power Cannot Save the Climate
Climate change can only be prevented by using renewables

“The nuclear industry concedes that coal, oil and gas cannot be replaced by nuclear power. In order to replace a mere 10 percent of fossil energy in the year 2050 by means of nuclear power, up to 1000 new nuclear power stations would have to be built (at the moment there are about 440 nuclear power stations worldwide). Construction of these plants would – if ever realised – take several decades. Existing uranium reserves would then be rapidly exhausted. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admits that nuclear energy could not be expanded swiftly enough to stop climate change. The solution is quite different: various world energy scenarios show that the climate problem can only be solved by the use of renewable forms of energy in conjunction with efficient and economical energy technologies.”

German scandal waste disposal ASSE II for atomic waste is not going to be flooded. The federal agency for radiation protection Germany (BfS web) now develops other plans. SOURCE here.

Nuclear Power is a Waste
No one wants such a legacy

“Every nuclear power station converts uranium fuel rods through nuclear fission into highly radioactive nuclear waste. Nuclear waste constitutes a life-threatening hazard because of its radioactive emissions. People, animals and plants need to therefore be shielded from it for several hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear power stations have been in operation for some 50 years but to date no one knows how nuclear waste can ultimately be stored. Worldwide there is not one safe and secure disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations In the short period of time that nuclear power has been used, it is leaving behind – in the shape of the resultant nuclear waste – a dead hand of historical dimensions for the Earth. If prehistoric man had already had nuclear power stations we would even today still be having to maintain a watch over his waste.”

Sweden - due pressure by big energy concerns, Sweden plans to build a new atomic power plant. According to Premier Fredrik Reinfeldt. The ban has been lifted, which was installed in 1980. 10 atomic reactors in Oskarshamn, Forsmark and Ringhals cover nearly 50 % of energy consumption in Sweden. SOURCE

Reason: Economy crisis

As if atomic power could aid the economy.

Do you know a Swedish energy concern which operates atomic power plants? I know one: VATTENFALL.

In Germany 50% of the Government (the CDU fraction) wants a comeback of atomic power, although 100 % of the Government (CDU & SPD fraction) signed a total pullout from atomic power – contract. Now, people are demonstrating against this come back. SOURCE hereand here (CAMPACT CIVL e.V. action), more than 2000 people were surrounding the building in which the CDU meeting was held (Berlin).

One of the most important NGOs in Belarus is called “Nasz Dom” or, in English: “Our House”. They want to animate the Belarusian people to claim their given rights. They won several lawsuits in Belarus. They are fighting for people who suffered from abuse by Belarusian militia. It’s about personal consternation and personal rights. They are working on an agenda on informing the Belarusian poeple about atomic power. It’s well known and a scandal that Lukashenko is a bad home-builder and planer:

Belarus is divided, still more than 2 million people are living in contaminated areas. The state uses much money to handle the aftermath of Chernobyl. The former official radiation map is forbidden, the health ministery is printing a new one, as sources in Minsk told me. This time with less radiation (Cs 137, Str90, Pu…) – it’s magic. Medics are not allowed to link illness / death to radiation or otherwise the’ll lose their job.

Gas / fluid is becoming more expensive as Putin / Gazprom said today. And Belarus benefits from low gas prices. Their economic growth was between 8 ad 11 % yearly, from 2004 till 2007. Now, this will end and the bubble will implode. Blame it on world econmic crisis? The “evil West”? No, it’s the Lukashenko made soap bubble. The whole economic system relies totally on cheap Russian gas fluid. And now they think atomic power is the solution.

In 2005 25 % of the Belarusian people were pro atomic power. Now it’s more than 60 % – according to Belarusian vice energy minister Mihadjuk. Why? He did not answer why in this interview.

Atomic Power: An effiecency factor of 34 %? High subsidies? A range of Uranium of about 60 years? These prices will also rise, just like gas and oil. It’s a problem in former soviet states: They never become free, always in addiction to the brother / leader.

Dear Belarusian friends – prepare yourself with easy enlightenment:

Ask your liquidators, people like Anatoli Gniewka or Alexander Mikulin, who cleaned the mess of Chernobyl and paid with their health and lifes. Ask them what they think of the new Belarusian atomic power plant. You don’t need it really. You have more than 370 areas in Belarus which are good for Wind Energy – as the the 1st chairman of BelWetroEnergo told me in Dec. 2008. He was working at Russian atomic rocket silos in the past. He knows both sides. Ask your liquidators, don’t let your rights cut by so called experts or Lukashenko.

Or ask Grigorij Lepin and Marina Bogdanovich – Belarusian scientists for an atomic free Belarus. But be careful. Lukashenko has experience in hunting down opponents. Independent scientists like Vassily Nesterenko (former liquidator – see HERE) are dead or like Bandachevski (of the BELRAD Institute) have emigrated.

Even so, parts of the Belarusian people like Lukashenko. Why is that? ‘Cause they remember the chaotic times after and during the Soviet collapse. In the old days Lukashenko gave the people safety and benefits. This changed: People have to pay more and more for energy. So, the atomic power bubble was invented, because the gas fluid bubble is gonna implode.

So, Belarus installed in 1998 a Comission which should advice the government in topics of Atomic Energy for Belarus. One member is 70 year old Alexander Mikhalevich – with his bureau inside of the Belarusian National Academy of Sciences / Minsk.

“Nuclear Power is Bad for your Health
Radioactivity is more dangerous than once officially thought. Nuclear installations make people sick. Childrens carcinogenic disease in the area surrounding German nuclear power plants. The health effects of uranium mining. Radioactive contamination of water and earth. The unsolved waste problem.

The effects of Chernobyl: Truth and Deception, Education and Resistance
The increase in childhood leukaemia and carcinogenic disease in Belarus and the Ukraine. The increase in other illnesses. Liquidators (clean-up workers) and their health. Effect on future generations. The effects of Chernobyl in Western Europe. The suppression of scientific results of research on Chernobyl. The relationship of the IAEA to WHO.

Nuclear Energy Renaissance
Globalisation of the nuclear industry and protection of interests. Trade in nuclear electricity in a liberalised Europe. The myth of nuclear energy as the solution to climate change. When will the fuel for nuclear reactors run out? Extension of the operating lives of nuclear reactors and degeneration of safety standards. The European “Safety” Reactor. Safety deficits in Western nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Power: Access to the Bomb
Dual use technologies: The link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Who has the nuclear option? How can we prevent nuclear proliferation? Iran. North Korea. Uranium weapons. Nuclear terrorism.

Renewable Energy
The road to energy security – alternatives to the fossil-nuclear path. Solar or atomic – future or chaos. The energy issue and megatechnology: nuclear energy, fusion reactors, hydrogen versus a decentralised approach to energy generation and supply. Best Practice: exemplary projects on renewable energy – national and international. The use of science, research and teaching to achieve a turning point in energy policy.”Quotes fromhttp://www.facts-on-nuclear-energy.info

Nuclear Power is a Dead End

Uranium will only last a few decades – what then?

Nuclear power – like the wasteful consumption of finite reserves of fossil fuels – is at a dead end. This is because the uranium, which is needed to operate nuclear power stations, is a scarce resource. “Fast breeder” reactors, with which it was hoped to stretch out the reserves for some time, have proven to be a failure on technical and commercial grounds. In just a few decades the nuclear power industry’s fuel reserves will run out Since oil and natural gas reserves will be used up in the foreseeable future, as well as uranium reserves, the human race can only meet its long-term energy needs by using forms of renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency.

Nuclear Power is a Con Trick
Nuclear energy is dispensable for power supply

In order to claim more importance for nuclear power, the nuclear industry repeatedly overstates nuclear energy’s share of electricity generation. If one examines closely what contribution nuclear energy makes to total worldwide energy consumption, it becomes evident that nuclear power is of practically no significance for mankind’s energy needs. In 2001, nuclear electricity supplied only 2.3 percent of worldwide energy needs. Renewable energy’s contribution to world energy supply is already significantly greater. The human race can easily do without nuclear power’s marginal contribution. The risks of nuclear accidents, production of highly radioactive waste and the costs necessary for its disposal, bear no rational relationship to the slight short-term gain in energy that nuclear power provides. Nuclear power is both hazardous and superfluous.

An accident could happen in any power station as a result of technical defect or human error, releasing large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. According to the official “German Nuclear Power Station Risk Study – Phase B”, a German nuclear power station in operation over some 40 years has a 0.1 percent probability of a worst-case scenario nuclear incident. In the European Union there are more than 150 operational nuclear power stations. The probability of a worst-case scenario nuclear incident is around 16% in Europe. That equates to the chances of throwing a 6 with the first cast of the dice. Worldwide there are some 440 operational nuclear power stations. The probability of a major worst-case scenario incident within the next 40 years is in the region of 40 percent. As the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl shows, a major worst-case scenario nuclear incident can be expected to cause several thousand fatalities.

Nuclear Power is a Waste
No one wants such a legacy

Every nuclear power station converts uranium fuel rods through nuclear fission into highly radioactive nuclear waste. Nuclear waste constitutes a life-threatening hazard because of its radioactive emissions. People, animals and plants need to therefore be shielded from it for several hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear power stations have been in operation for some 50 years but to date no one knows how nuclear waste can ultimately be stored. Worldwide there is not one safe and secure disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations In the short period of time that nuclear power has been used, it is leaving behind – in the shape of the resultant nuclear waste – a dead hand of historical dimensions for the Earth. If prehistoric man had already had nuclear power stations we would even today still be having to maintain a watch over his waste.

Nuclear Power is a Bomb Factory
Nuclear power promotes proliferation of nuclear weapons

Those countries which have developed and built nuclear bombs in recent decades began with a civil nuclear program. However, these civil programs were often only a cover for their military interests and provided them with access to the technologies and know-how for the design of nuclear bombs. This fact shows that the export and further proliferation of nuclear technology significantly increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Nuclear Power Cannot Save the Climate
Climate change can only be prevented by using renewables

The nuclear industry concedes that coal, oil and gas cannot be replaced by nuclear power. In order to replace a mere 10 percent of fossil energy in the year 2050 by means of nuclear power, up to 1000 new nuclear power stations would have to be built (at the moment there are about 440 nuclear power stations worldwide). Construction of these plants would – if ever realised – take several decades. Existing uranium reserves would then be rapidly exhausted. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admits that nuclear energy could not be expanded swiftly enough to stop climate change. The solution is quite different: various world energy scenarios show that the climate problem can only be solved by the use of renewable forms of energy in conjunction with efficient and economical energy technologies.

Nuclear Power Makes Less Jobs
Jobs? Wind power beats nuclear!

Nuclear power is capital intensive while renewable forms of energy are labour (job) intensive. For example, in Germany in 2002 some 30,000 people were employed in the nuclear industry. On the other hand, more than 53,000 people are presently employed in the German wind power industry alone. Overall, the renewable energies industry in Germany has already secured 120,000 jobs despite its as yet only small share of power generation. Further expansion of renewable energies is adding new jobs on a daily basis. Millions of new jobs could be created worldwide within the space of a few years by expanding the use of renewable forms of energy.

Alternatives to Nuclear Energy
100% of energy from sun, wind, water and biomass

In 2002, the German parliament presented an energy scenario according to which the entire German energy supply requirement could be achieved through the use of renewable forms of energy. If that is possible in Germany – a country with a small geographical area, high population and energy density and a high standard of living – it is possible anywhere. Meanwhile even the energy industry concedes that, by the year 2050, more energy could be provided from renewable sources worldwide than mankind is using today. The energy needs of this earth can be met through a mix of solar thermal power plants and solar electricity stations, wind farms, hydroelectric power stations and the various uses of biomass. In order to restrict growth of the energy requirement, economical energy technologies must come into play. Added to this, the rapid expansion of a world solar energy industry is an important step towards preventing wars over scarce resources such as oil, gas and uranium.

This time an accient happened inside of a laboratory of the the IAEA near Vienna (Austrian Research Center Seibersdorf – map), on August 3rd 2008. According to the IAEA Plutonium samples (!) bursted. Plutonium was released but the environment was not harmed – as the IAEA said. What is environment? Is environment also the room where the Plutonium samples were stored? It’s Plutnonium! The most dangerous poison in the world! This is the description of the laboratory by the IAEA, quote:

The Laboratories were established in 1962 with the objective to contribute to the implementation of the Agency’s programmes and projects within its department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, but also for Safeguards, Nuclear Safety and Security and Technical Co-operation.